9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 317 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA licence - Implementation of order - Held that - There is absolutely no respect for the CBEC circulars or the CBLR 2013. This data appears to be just the tip of the iceberg as the revenue is seeking further time of 8 to 12 months just to compile the data of other such files regarding delay in processing - Learned Departmental Representative submits that they be given another chance to move the Hon ble High Court for hearing of the stay petition as soon the Hon ble High Court reopens after Deepawali vacation - Matter adjourned to allow Revenue to mention the matter before the Hon ble High Court.
Issues Involved:
1. Implementation of the Tribunal's final order dated 21/04/2015. 2. Delay in the implementation of the Tribunal's order by the Revenue. 3. Revenue's reliance on the High Court's observations in West End Shipping Agency case. 4. Compliance with time limits prescribed under Custom Broker Regulations. 5. Fundamental right to work and its denial due to procedural delays. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Implementation of the Tribunal's final order dated 21/04/2015: The applicant, a Custom broker, filed an application on 16/08/2016 seeking the implementation of the Tribunal's final order dated 21/04/2015. The Tribunal had partly set aside the order revoking the applicant's license and directed its restoration from 01/01/2016. Despite this, the order had not been implemented, prompting the applicant to seek enforcement. 2. Delay in the implementation of the Tribunal's order by the Revenue: The Tribunal noted significant delays from the Revenue in implementing its order. The Departmental Representative repeatedly sought adjournments, citing efforts to obtain a stay from the High Court. Despite promises made before the Tribunal to expedite the matter, no substantive action was taken by the Revenue to get the stay motion heard in the High Court. The applicant had been out of work since 08/12/2010, and the delay in implementation was causing undue hardship. 3. Revenue's reliance on the High Court's observations in West End Shipping Agency case: The Revenue relied on observations from the High Court in the West End Shipping Agency case, arguing that the Tribunal should not pass drastic orders for implementation without considering the Revenue's right to appeal and seek a stay. However, the Tribunal pointed out that the High Court also stated that the Tribunal's order could be given effect subject to the pending appeal. The Revenue was accused of selectively interpreting the High Court's observations while ignoring the spirit of the order, which recognized the right of the assessee to the implementation of the Tribunal's order. 4. Compliance with time limits prescribed under Custom Broker Regulations: The Tribunal highlighted the lack of adherence to the time limits prescribed under the Custom Broker Regulations. Data submitted by the Revenue showed significant delays in inquiry processes, with some cases pending for over five years. The Tribunal emphasized that such delays were detrimental to both the justice system and the rights of the Custom brokers, leading to prolonged periods of unemployment for those whose licenses were suspended. 5. Fundamental right to work and its denial due to procedural delays: The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's observations in Olga Tellis & Ors vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, emphasizing the fundamental right to work. The prolonged suspension of the applicant's license without timely inquiry and resolution was seen as a violation of this right. The Tribunal criticized the Revenue's inaction and lack of urgency in dealing with cases affecting the livelihood of Custom brokers. Conclusion: The Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the Revenue's handling of the case and the inordinate delays in implementing its order. The matter was adjourned to 21/11/2016, respecting the assurance of the Senior Counsel that efforts would be made to expedite the stay petition in the High Court. The Tribunal underscored the importance of adhering to prescribed time limits and protecting the fundamental rights of individuals affected by administrative actions.
|
